Can Joomla! extensions be released under non-GPL compatible licenses?

[skOre]

Actually both groups are extremist (and both have (A LOT OF) fanaticisms like any good extremist group). There's nothing on the middle, this is wild capitalism vs wild communism.

Sheeesh. Free Software is not about communism. In fact it is very capitalistic to take the competition for the lowest price to the zero pricetag. Capitalists are regularly mad at Free Software because they are capitalist as well, just that they escape the grip of their big business power games

So let's start MILD (Middle Integrated License Development), on general line, a license which can be either free or commercial (in real way, not like GPL, you can sell it but end up forked), where the Source must be open and shipped or available to costumers but costumers can NOT fork, take ownership or redistribute the source or the program. Basically this will allow developers to not see their work get away for free because a 15 yo kid found nothing else funny to do but to fork him out and the costumers to keep their source developed/trimmed in case of the developer can no longer support them (eg. bankruptcy).

Why would somebody taking the sourcecode, offering bad enhancements, bad support and generally less value be a threat to the original developer? FOSS works by implication here - if you keep working to stay in the game, nobody will try to take your throne. This is how it works for Joomla as for any other of such projects. In fact, its only that things get forked if the original developers screw up, which is how it kind of was with Joomla.

Asking of users to "consume", but to keep the consumption to themselves is not only naive, but also very counterproductive.

[javalamp]

This isn't a fake name! I used to have a load of posts under this name, but they've gone, so I've re-registered.

Could you please provide us with some more information regarding this? Nobody I spoke to today seems to recall ever seeing this name before on the forum. We only delete a forum account if requested, and even then the posts are not removed so they will stay visible.

In the Mambo days I was called "nowitsgone" but that site got cracked and never returned. I produced the mosPetition / joomPetition components  and a couple of modules before producing one small commercial extension. Just because I don't spend my life constantly posting doesn't mean that I can't express my displeasure at the new purist GPL interpretation. (I only found out about it by accident Today).

My commercial extension needs a major overhaul to take in globals and to comply with version 1.5. Since I am between contracts at the moment I was contemplating spending the time on it, but since I have invested many hundreds of hours over the years writing the extension from scratch and the equivalent of thousands of pounds on the concept I don't want to give it away. The money I have received has been small overall, but would have enabled me to justify updating joomPetition/mosPetition under the GPL. Sorry guys, my time is worth more than nothing, I'll spend it with my kids instead.

I've sent an e-mail to Phil Taylor to see what he is intending to do. If he is going to port to another CMS I might well do that too. If he can suggest a viable GPL model maybe I'll think about that. He's got the most to lose as far as I can see. My extensions are for tiny niches, but they were fun for a while.

[mattm]

I don't believe templates were discussed much here.
Here's what Joomla core developers have to say.....

How does the treatment of templates differ from the treatment of components, modules, and plugins?
In our opinion, templates are composite packages that consist of both code elements and non-code elements.  We believe that the code elements of a template must be licensed under the GNU GPL because they are derivative works.  However, the non-code elements are just data acted upon by the software and may be licensed in any way the author sees fit.  The non-code elements include elements like Images, Movies, Animations, CSS and formatting markup.

Please see: "Does JavaScript included in templates and extensions need to be licensed under the GPL?" and "Does the CSS in my template need to be licensed under the GPL?"

Now a Quote from the GNU/GPL......

These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.

Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works based on the Program.

Regarding templates according to Joomla Index.php is GNU/GPL. the images and css can be licensed under what the developer wants.

Now to achieve a dual licensed template must the css and images or the non-gpl be released separately from the index.php?

If they do not need to be separated. then why doesn't this apply to other extensions.

according to GNU/GPL If a works if they are released together they must be GPL.
That of course does not change the fact  the the images are still copyrighted.

My question is how can you distribute works that include part GNU/GPL and license the rest differently but include them in the same template.

[louis.landry]

I don't believe templates were discussed much here.
Here's what Joomla core developers have to say.....

How does the treatment of templates differ from the treatment of components, modules, and plugins?
In our opinion, templates are composite packages that consist of both code elements and non-code elements.  We believe that the code elements of a template must be licensed under the GNU GPL because they are derivative works.  However, the non-code elements are just data acted upon by the software and may be licensed in any way the author sees fit.  The non-code elements include elements like Images, Movies, Animations, CSS and formatting markup.

Please see: "Does JavaScript included in templates and extensions need to be licensed under the GPL?" and "Does the CSS in my template need to be licensed under the GPL?"

Now a Quote from the GNU/GPL......

These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.

Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works based on the Program.

Regarding templates according to Joomla Index.php is GNU/GPL. the images and css can be licensed under what the developer wants.

Now to achieve a dual licensed template must the css and images or the non-gpl be released separately from the index.php?

If they do not need to be separated. then why doesn't this apply to other extensions.

according to GNU/GPL If a works if they are released together they must be GPL.
That of course does not change the fact  the the images are still copyrighted.

My question is how can you distribute works that include part GNU/GPL and license the rest differently but include them in the same template.

The short answer as I understand it is that there is a difference between data and code.  My understsanding is that the "work" in that case is actually the program or code ... not the data, which is a separate work.  Data would be the CSS and Images, etc thus the GNU GPL has no force and affect due to it being a separate work.

Again, thats my understanding.  It isn't about what is in the tar file .. i can tar up two completely separate works into a package, it is about the distribution of the "work". 

Louis

[Shamele]

I noticed some references to TYPO3 having no commercial extensions. This is not true.

http://www.realobjects.com/
http://www.webtrends.com/

WebTrends released a GPL extension as a conduit to their software, but it's still commercial.

The real problem will always be what constitutes a derivative work. It's something that has plagued music, art, writing, design, etc. for years. The biggest problem is that the only way to find out if it's a derivative work is to go to court and have it challenged. Then the judge will decide. Unfortunately, each judge could come up with a different answer since it's all based on personal opinion anyway. I think that extensions ARE NOT derivative works, but merely the output of the original program. For example, you can make a drawing in GIMP and it does not fall under GIMP's copyright. Why? Because it is the output of the program. You are using GIMP to achieve a result. That's what the program is for! So let's say you are using a content management system and need an additional feature to manage a directory. You program this feature and now you have a directory extension to manage this content. Why should that fall under GPL? So if you use Joomla, like PHP, MySQL, etc., as the framework to create a killer website, I don't see why you need to consider your extension as GPL software any more than you consider the actual pages it generates as GPL content. I think programmers should be given the same amount of protection as designers, writers and artists do. In other words, just because you use a paintbrush and canvas doesn't mean you have to distribute a piece of art with the copyright of the paintbrush and canvas manufacturers. So just because you use PHP, MySQL and Joomla, doesn't mean you have to release your extension under GPL if you choose to distribute it.

[mattm]

So basically the index. php is a separate work from the css and the images.
So then all extensions that use code from joomla could also do it this way.
One of the arguments about extensions included the fact that you could install them in the admin installation panel. Such as you can with templates shouldn't then the css and images reside outside joomla as Index.php is considered a bridge. If in fact they do carry a differant license.

I apologize for keeping this thread going but i need to be completely clear before i can resume creating as i wish to follow what i need to.

[slinky]

skOre - I was about to roast your vociferous comments that border on the absurd until I looked at your web site. I see that you are twenty-something artist and a self-professed "tree hugger" and an "idealist." I'll try to have some sympathy but I'm hoping that you can LISTEN to what many experienced people here are saying. I wonder whether you'll see things differently if you get married and have a few kids, feel even more urgency to bring home the bacon... I'll explain

1. Nobody knows how long anything is going to take if Joomla is going to suddenly reverse course like it has with this new licensing vision. Nobody had a plan in place. Expect what you will when an unprepared group decides to move headfirst into the unknown darkness.

This is not going to get any more true the more often you state this. The course has always been pretty clear and only because of the recent discussion, the joomla team decided to take an unmistakable stand on this as many developers did not understand it.

Nobody could give a crap about whether the course was clear to some people at some time. For the hundredth time, the mistake, as was so incredibly well put by several people prior, was that the Joomla project thrived and was allowed to thrive on a license that was other than the GPL for a LONG TIME. The non-GPL cat was SHOVED out of the bag. Taking an "unmistakable stand" on this" isn't going to change the repercussions of trying to shove the cat back into the bag. You'll see in a moment.

3. When will replacement extensions appear? Unless you want to pay custom development, probably when Joomla 2.0 is released.

And what is the problem with that?

You're what... 25? Perhaps that is why you feel immortal. The rest of us aren't. I'm hoping to see Joomla 1.5 officially released with whatever legal standing it has while I'm still young. We only have a finite time to accomplish goals during our short lifetimes. Providing an answer like this, respectfully, makes me wonder whether you are really thinking about the issues or perhaps it is obvious that with you it's the free GPL way or the highway... and time is of no consequence to you... it will happen when it does...

4. So what is the answer about our existing sites legally? You heard the response. Nobody can say for sure. If you want a professional opinion, hire an attorney. As long as the copyright holders insist that any non-GPL extension is infringing, even if you bought it based on the extensions directory listing, there is a question. Maybe there will be another rider. Whatever. Who cares? Your extension will likely no longer be developed here so that is all that matters.

There have now been at least 5 people stating here, very clearly, that not only can users not be sued, but also nobody is going to do it. What is so hard to understand about that?

So now we have the five wise men who have concluded matters of fact and law and guaranteeing the community complete absolution and a fiscal guarantee? Why do I think they are not going that far?

I'd like to preface what I'm about to say by thanking the incredibly great core development team and volunteers here who have donated so much of their time to helping others. Without all of you and your tireless efforts I wouldn't have my site and others that people love. I only have the understanding and belief that all of you are good, generous people who had and still have benificent intentions - even in this mess we are in. I mean what I say.

Without providing legal advice and having a GREAT deal of sympathy for fellow developers here, e.g. see JoomlaChurch, who don't know who or what to believe, I'd like to help them assauge their fears and further probe bobbio2007's fantastic post. It seems that the copyright holders here have themselves caught in a bit of a pickle. I don't know what the superlawyers said - I'm just a lawyer - but there are legal principles and rules that are contained in common sense. Do we really need to look at what the license says any more at this point? The fact that that that the commercial non-GPL extensions were listed, recommended and a integrated as a part of Joomla and this community for so long by the rights holders makes it incredibly difficult for them to now run to court and make any assertions of wrongdoing. Courts want to screen cases from plaintiffs/complainers who themselves are guilty of not coming in clean and creating their own problem. This is a mess. It is arguable that even the developers of commercial extensions cannot be prevented from continuing development on what they have sold here. After all, weren't they induced into doing what they did here to their detriment? They are now told after a long time that their extensions are not valid here or elsewhere. I don't know what the superlawyers would say, but we are talking about a fact-based problem, not a hypothetical discussion about what the GPL is or intended to be. I can only wonder what the real situation is with Joomla 1.5, but I'm not going there.

But WHO REALLY CARES? As I said, until you're ready to back your words by hiring developers to fill in the huge commercial extensions hole that existed for years, you're just rallying all the troops to continue to do work for free. bobbio2007 stated much so eloquently. Never gonna happen in a timely fashion...

For the past few months I compiled a list of amazing integrated components that work together. Most important ones will die. Unlike the GPL equivalents, these worked. No half-baked code and sketchy support. Kiss it all goodbye.

You are extrapolating your impression of a few components to the whole situation I'm afraid. I know a lot of dedicated Free Software developers who provide great code and great support. You are simply making up arguments to fit your agenda.

And I can provide you with 100 examples for every one you provide of crappy free code with horrible support. What's your point, especially as it pertains to whether people who have invested in Joomla will be able to replace their now "non-complying" commercial extensions with a reasonable alternative?

A few components? How about we name the laundry list. You REALLY don't want to do that. Until you're ready to fund the efforts, quit giving hypotheticals and bare promises of future salvation.

Joomla was known as the place where you could spend $300 and have a beautiful web site. Wonder why drupal's add-ons are far inferior and why growth has taken much longer than Joomla?

I'm sure that Drupal will be at that point as well in the future. Why is speed the only maxime to judge whether something is good?

Why is "speed" important? This is really more for levity since I couldn't think of another way to express my sentiments verbally.
http://forum.malaysianmedicine.com/topi ... hichpage=8
http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/d/d0058000.html

Instead of pie in the sky idealism, I had to investigate the cost of bringing a Drupal site up to speed where it was cosmetically appealing and functional. I know the actual cost of several of the "showcase" Drupal sites. As bobbio2007 stated, my own developers came to the same conclusion. Before you start telling me what the future holds, spend some of your time figuring out what you REALLY need to accomplish to get there. And if you continue to absurdly insist that time for completion is not an issue, then even your own advocates are rolling their eyeballs in disbelief...

P.s: i hope joomla still will be a cms for the masses, right now i got scared over if i am at all allowed to use this cms without getting sued in some way ore another,, cause i pressed the wrong button and downloaded something that was free (extensions,etc) but isn't anyway or,, ehhh

Please don't support the confusion that has been spread by some in this thread. Nobody is going to be sued because there were uncompliant extensions on a website. This is ridiculous - who would do what nobody can? (see above)

You are spreading confusion and unnecessary clutter by not paying attention to what people are saying. And as most of the core developers themselves are saying -- we are not lawyers and are not providing you with any legal opinions. Hire legal counsel for such a task. I respect them for saying so. The only thing ridiculous is you trying to rally people to continue your quest to GPL the world like is in your own existence. My fellow site owners need solid answers and solutions. Not hype about a clouded future which nobody prepared for.

And in conclusion to this tome, we have really socked it to the development community. There is a heavy price to pay. None of you know exactly what it is but the wheels and doors are coming off this puppy. It's a LOT harder to accelerate once you've experienced a slowdown. And if you want to make this into a drupal, fine. If you consider "success" to be a handful of gorgeous sites and lots of simple personal sites and blogs, great. I lived through slash, phpnuke and more you've never heard of. Joomla was way more than any of those and a real world example of being able to create beautiful, functional web sites quickly and at a fraction of the cost. People here didn't just put up some shlocky site that worked - they invested in creating labors of love on a budget. I love you commercial developers who saved me the cost of paying 10-20 times what it would have just to get those extensions to work flawlessly. I'm sorry to see you go. I fear that this amazing dream will now be a thing of the past unless someone wakes up soon. Not having pure GPL licensing is not evil. There are other great models as we've witnessed here. The free software foundation may have great ideas and superlawyers but as it pertains to the facts concerning this project, I fear that the result of where we are headed is not what many of us will be happy with...

You've all heard my piece. I hope that we'll do something while there is still time. In the meanwhile, I have lots I need to do... so much to do, so little time. Love to all.

[rlparker]

... Sorry guys, my time is worth more than nothing, I'll spend it with my kids instead.

Now *there* is a useful thought that adds a little "real llife" perspective to some of this discussion. Off topic though it might be, I 'll go ahead and say that our kids, and the world in general, might be well served by many of us spending more time that way. 

--rlparker

[speeduneed]

All we ask is that you change your license and keep doing everything else you do. Thats it. Thats all you have to do. Change your license to be GPL compatible. You don't even have to tell people its GPL, all you have to do is put in the copy right file the relevant notices and in the source code the notices. Sure everyone will know it, but how many of your customers (and your repeat customers, you know the ones who keep you alive) are really going to kill you?

You don't think that you have to tell those who own a copy of your software that the license is being changed? Do you really believe that telling software developers to change their business model that they have been relying upon for the past two years is trivial? If I asked you to change your gender - you could keep everything else the same - would you consider this a big deal? It is to them.

How about the numerous successful sites using these extensions - are we asking them to remove them? How about the developers who spent time, money and effort thinking it was fine, having their extensions in the gallery, but now are in violation? What about large corporations using Joomla with extensions that are in the gallery but may now be considered in violation of the license? (I know of at least 2.) I see a lot of angry people.

This whole issue has no short term impact on end users (people who run sites). Whatever they have on their sites follows the individual licenses of those pieces, whether Joomla!, native extensions  or other products they use, with or without bridges. The license issue comes into play when redistribution takes place. 

Along the same lines, anyone can write--or hire a developer to write-- a propriety extension for use on their own sites and they can also, of course, take any open source product and modify it for themselves to their heart's content.  It's when they want to redistribute that the GPL and other issues come into play.

Yes, this issue has an impact on end users, people who run sites, if they use extensions that now use a license that is at odds with the understanding of our core team/copyright holders. Not only is there an issue of being in violation for having infringing software but there is also the question of whether this decision has sounded the death knell for the further development of those extensions important to the site owners. We are already watching some of them (like our own volunteers) leave this community. As I said, I have seen at least 2 Fortune companies running Joomla with an extension that is the core of the site, that would be now deemed in violation of the Joomla license in the opinion of the core/copyright holders.

I hope that many of you will give some thought as to what I'm about to say and am just one of many sharing the same sentiments. I am becoming hesitant about touching Joomla irrespective of what the "right" legal answer is regarding extensions. Why? Because I don't care. All I care about is the fact that the copyright holders are taking a position that seems adverse to my own and adverse to the practice that I have planned my site for the past several years. It's also adverse to the way that developers have been developing for the past two years. I have no interest nor time nor money to litigate the issue to find out who is right about whether or not the Joomla License, as is rider/riderless, which requires that the extensions on my site must be GPL or compatible licenses in their opinion. There are other solutions where I have less headaches and can avoid being an intentional infringer.

With regard to any statements that nobody is suing anyone, we're all friends, don't take it seriously, etc. - where there is the appearance of deep pockets or gold at stake, too many normally level headed people lose their minds and jump at the pot of gold. Don't believe me? I advise you to attend a reading of a will or a divorce proceeding. As a corporate entity, everyone goes after you in the same way people make a living off trying to sue the government. Again, why do I need to bother with Joomla? Thankfully there is Drupal. And you watch - my company is looking at CMS systems. Prior to this discussion Joomla was the clear leader. Right now I wouldn't touch it because all I'm doing is inviting a lawsuit because there is already dispute. Regardless, how can any corporation run a site where there will be people publicly mocking them for running a site in violation of a license that nobody will enforce? It's a PR nightmare and a horrific precent to set.

Moving along, someone mentioned an issue of precedent. You hit the nail on the head with where I was going. We are in a tough position when a practice has not only existed, but been integrated into the official Joomla site with its blessing. Now I'm not saying anyone is going to sue anyone, but as I mentioned, there will be a LOT of angry people who may have invested a great deal of time and money based upon this assumption. To be told now that their extensions will need to comply or be removed from the extensions directory? I don't need to continue to get into a long discussion on what this backtracking means (you can do a search in Google for "waiver" just to get started.) Watch - even if they will go away peacefully they will go away. I've been there before and watched them die. I don't need to name them.

What's my big point here? We can all discuss peace, goodness, sharing, the love for the GPL and respect. But the fact remains that Joomla grew tremendously in a manner that we are now putting a harsh emergency brake to. As someone said, even the Joomla site may have extensions that are now deemed in violation of this license. Amy, I respect your statement that "this is where we are, etc." but it is ignoring the repercussions of what such a stance will do. We are already beginning to see the wheels fly off this project. I myself am in a quandary about what to do moving forward because Joomla has now sounded the death knell for my own project that has been in development for a while because I have at least 3 critical, visible extensions that will probably go away.

So yes sk0re, take the high road. Let's use optimistic words like Gandalf the Grey and the other warriors who forged new roads for us to travel. Here here! Or perhaps not. Because many will have decided that "there" contains much less of a headache and it's pretty certain that there won't be any dispute about their efforts of the past 2 years. It's a taste that will linger for a long time...

Hey slinky

Your company is not at risk of anything. Even if you buy a commercially licenced extention and use it with a GPL program.
Joomla cannot sue you as you are not distributing software and you personally have not violated the licence. This only takes away "DISTRIBUTORS" intellectual property rights of non compliant extention developers. For your company this is actually GREAT!!!! because it means your company cannot be sued by that commercail developer for misusing the software.

Also this is not the fault of the Joomla team. Its common knowledge to anyone in FREE GPL software and ALL of the other open source GPL CMS system have EXACTLY the same problem. Joomla was just the first to stand up and make a statement about it.

[p9939068]

This only takes away "DISTRIBUTORS" intellectual property rights of non compliant extention developers. For your company this is actually GREAT!!!! because it means your company cannot be sued by that commercail developer for misusing the software.

Wow, that's really "GREAT!!!!" Now I cannot be sued by the developer even when I misuse the software!!! I hope GPL will be extended to all other legal areas! Then I cannot be sued when I misuse anything!! Perhaps one day I can even get away with [mod note: poor choice of word]!


Great to know the advocates of GPL are also advocates of misusing software (or misusing anything, for that matter). My point is made, feel free to remove this post.

[slinky]

Your company is not at risk of anything. Even if you buy a commercially licenced extention and use it with a GPL program.
Joomla cannot sue you as you are not distributing software and you personally have not violated the licence. This only takes away "DISTRIBUTORS" intellectual property rights of non compliant extention developers. For your company this is actually GREAT!!!! because it means your company cannot be sued by that commercail developer for misusing the software.

Also this is not the fault of the Joomla team. Its common knowledge to anyone in FREE GPL software and ALL of the other open source GPL CMS system have EXACTLY the same problem. Joomla was just the first to stand up and make a statement about it.

Speed - I understand now what you are saying. I understand the hair you are splitting and kudos to you for getting to that point. Let's say that we all can appreciate the fact that, whatever the circumstances are after all the facts have been looked at, people won't get sued for continuing to use the extensions and I don't want to confuse the real issue.  It doesn't matter and it's all moot. If most of my best Joomla extensions are no longer supported because the developers had enough -- and I've been given notice this is the case -- then further development of my site will cease. I will need to replace LOTS of great, functional extensions that worked. There is now a big hole in Joomla's functionality where a GROUP of people will need to replace. Many of those who did are now gone.

Regarding the fact that "everyone knows" statement - it doesn't matter. Joomla itself permitted a practice to go on extensively and embraced it. The copyright holders had knowledge and ability to clearly admonish and take action to remove extensions that were non-compliant from the directory and not being recommended in the forum. Pointing to other efforts that have the same problem as Joomla doesn't solve anything. The problem is that nobody spoke up here LONG AGO when someone should have - and could have.

Now we have a mess. Developers are leaving for sure. There is nothing wrong with having a model that is a little different than was intended and it was working very, very well. Don't fix what isn't broken. Find a way to maintain the status quo and let it thrive as it did.

[louis.landry]

skOre - I was about to roast your vociferous comments that border on the absurd until I looked at your web site. I see that you are twenty-something artist and a self-professed "tree hugger" and an "idealist." I'll try to have some sympathy but I'm hoping that you can LISTEN to what many experienced people here are saying. I wonder whether you'll see things differently if you get married and have a few kids, feel even more urgency to bring home the bacon... I'll explain

An attack like that does not speak well for you ... that was unwarranted and unwelcome.  If you want to argue, argue facts, not silly musings about someone's opinion's worth based on them having kids or not or being married or not or their age... thats simply abhorrent and you just lost a lot of respect credit in my book.

1. Nobody knows how long anything is going to take if Joomla is going to suddenly reverse course like it has with this new licensing vision. Nobody had a plan in place. Expect what you will when an unprepared group decides to move headfirst into the unknown darkness.

This is not going to get any more true the more often you state this. The course has always been pretty clear and only because of the recent discussion, the joomla team decided to take an unmistakable stand on this as many developers did not understand it.

Nobody could give a crap about whether the course was clear to some people at some time. For the hundredth time, the mistake, as was so incredibly well put by several people prior, was that the Joomla project thrived and was allowed to thrive on a license that was other than the GPL for a LONG TIME. The non-GPL cat was SHOVED out of the bag. Taking an "unmistakable stand" on this" isn't going to change the repercussions of trying to shove the cat back into the bag. You'll see in a moment.

That statement is patently false.  The Joomla! project has thrived ON the GNU GPL license since its inception.  Not a single stable release has been made with the aforementioned rider attached.  You are misleading people by making assertions that have already been proven false pages ago.  If you are going to call kettle black you should rethink your own color.  The only thing that has changed is the core team's understanding of what the GNU GPL license means to us and our project.  Mistakes were made and we have now endeavored to correct them.

Repercussions obviously are a part of this and no one knows it more than those of us being threatened with forks and spoons and other more nasty things.  You don't have to remind anyone of that, we all get it.

3. When will replacement extensions appear? Unless you want to pay custom development, probably when Joomla 2.0 is released.

And what is the problem with that?

You're what... 25? Perhaps that is why you feel immortal. The rest of us aren't. I'm hoping to see Joomla 1.5 officially released with whatever legal standing it has while I'm still young. We only have a finite time to accomplish goals during our short lifetimes. Providing an answer like this, respectfully, makes me wonder whether you are really thinking about the issues or perhaps it is obvious that with you it's the free GPL way or the highway... and time is of no consequence to you... it will happen when it does...

I am 27, does that make my opinion less important?  What makes you all high and mighty in your age... how old are you by the way?  Age does not equal wisdom... there are some really blunt morons out there that are old.  Hell, the US has a former chair of the Senate Commerce Committee who thinks the "internets are a series of tubes" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Series_of_tubes ... and what is he?  You guessed it, an attorney.  Now that is some wisdom for you... an attorney and US Senator who chaired the committee who oversees internet commerce who is considerably older than 25, married, children ... the works.  You can have that sort of wisdom, this project doesn't need it.

I suggest you keep that kind of judgmental crap for a venue that deserves it... the Joomla! community forums do not!

4. So what is the answer about our existing sites legally? You heard the response. Nobody can say for sure. If you want a professional opinion, hire an attorney. As long as the copyright holders insist that any non-GPL extension is infringing, even if you bought it based on the extensions directory listing, there is a question. Maybe there will be another rider. Whatever. Who cares? Your extension will likely no longer be developed here so that is all that matters.

There have now been at least 5 people stating here, very clearly, that not only can users not be sued, but also nobody is going to do it. What is so hard to understand about that?

So now we have the five wise men who have concluded matters of fact and law and guaranteeing the community complete absolution and a fiscal guarantee? Why do I think they are not going that far?

No one guaranteed absolution.  What was stated was stated.  Why must everyone pick everyones words apart to try to make themselves look better and smarter?  Why can't you just read and process the information given, ask intelligent questions that weren't already asked and answered and move on?  What are you digging for?  You stated you wanted to help.  Helping does not include beating people to death with endless arguments.  Leave that for somewhere else as well.  How about you try to provide clarity of thought and message instead of attacks on other people with different views.  Just because you have been trained in rhetoric and know how to make someone look bad doesn't mean you should do it.  This is not a court of law and there are no juries.  This is a community and we all deserve respect even when we disagree.  If someone lies, then point it out.  If you disagree, then disagree but don't enflame emotions... it doesn't help.

I'd like to preface what I'm about to say by thanking the incredibly great core development team and volunteers here who have donated so much of their time to helping others. Without all of you and your tireless efforts I wouldn't have my site and others that people love. I only have the understanding and belief that all of you are good, generous people who had and still have benificent intentions - even in this mess we are in. I mean what I say.

And that is appreciated greatly.  We care greatly about the greater good or we wouldn't have even considered doing what we do.

Without providing legal advice and having a GREAT deal of sympathy for fellow developers here, e.g. see JoomlaChurch, who don't know who or what to believe, I'd like to help them assauge their fears and further probe bobbio2007's fantastic post. It seems that the copyright holders here have themselves caught in a bit of a pickle. I don't know what the superlawyers said - I'm just a lawyer - but there are legal principles and rules that are contained in common sense.

You keep beating this superlawyer thing ... is that meant to be a dig?  Its really childish.  They are our lawyers, and they helped author the GNU GPL thus have a very deep understanding of it.  They have also been to a very large degree the legal defenders of it which means that they have gone up against LOTS of attorneys arguing the other side and thus know very well where limits are.  They are not "superlawyers" but they are good ones with in my opinion a very true moral compass.  These guys are defenders of freedom in a multitude of ways.  Does that make them infallible? Absolutely not, they are attorneys after all and we know that lawyers are not infallible.  Moreover they are people and I don't even need to mention how infallible people are   Stop beating that horse ... it cheapens whatever point you are trying to make.  If you got your feelings hurt because someone doesn't hold you in as high of regard as the SFLC then I'm sorry you feel that way, but thats the way the cookie crumbles.

Do we really need to look at what the license says any more at this point?

That is something for each person to decide for themselves.  I know I don't.  At least I don't think so, but hey ... you never know

The fact that that that the commercial non-GPL extensions were listed, recommended and a integrated as a part of Joomla and this community for so long by the rights holders makes it incredibly difficult for them to now run to court and make any assertions of wrongdoing.

None of the copyright holders ever said they would.  In fact I would refer you to my previous post that you "100% agreed with" stating the opposite.

Courts want to screen cases from plaintiffs/complainers who themselves are guilty of not coming in clean and creating their own problem. This is a mess. It is arguable that even the developers of commercial extensions cannot be prevented from continuing development on what they have sold here. After all, weren't they induced into doing what they did here to their detriment?

Take it to court and see if you must.  The CRYSTAL CLEAR message is... for the protection of the Joomla! project we are asking for compliance.  If you do not have to release your work under the GNU GPL to comply, then that is your right.  All we said was that our understanding was that most extensions were derivative works.  You can disagree if you want.  This has been stated over and over again... I won't state it again, especially to you because I know that since you are an attorney you can understand what I am saying here.  It isn't difficult I don't think ... even for someone older than 25?

They are now told after a long time that their extensions are not valid here or elsewhere. I don't know what the superlawyers would say, but we are talking about a fact-based problem, not a hypothetical discussion about what the GPL is or intended to be. I can only wonder what the real situation is with Joomla 1.5, but I'm not going there.

WRONG!  They are assuming things that were not said and I was hoping that you would be helping to clear this up, not continue to spread the misinformation.  We said exactly as I said above.  Read it again.  No one said anything about validity of any extensions.

Your reference to the "real situation" with Joomla! 1.5 can be simply answered.  It is in the beta stage of development and we are approaching an RC.  We have decided it is in our and the communities best interest to stick with the license that we have always had.

Again with the snide superlawyers crap.

But WHO REALLY CARES? As I said, until you're ready to back your words by hiring developers to fill in the huge commercial extensions hole that existed for years, you're just rallying all the troops to continue to do work for free. bobbio2007 stated much so eloquently. Never gonna happen in a timely fashion...

For the past few months I compiled a list of amazing integrated components that work together. Most important ones will die. Unlike the GPL equivalents, these worked. No half-baked code and sketchy support. Kiss it all goodbye.

You are extrapolating your impression of a few components to the whole situation I'm afraid. I know a lot of dedicated Free Software developers who provide great code and great support. You are simply making up arguments to fit your agenda.

And I can provide you with 100 examples for every one you provide of crappy free code with horrible support. What's your point, especially as it pertains to whether people who have invested in Joomla will be able to replace their now "non-complying" commercial extensions with a reasonable alternative?

A few components? How about we name the laundry list. You REALLY don't want to do that. Until you're ready to fund the efforts, quit giving hypotheticals and bare promises of future salvation.

You do a good job with the scare tactics  

Joomla was known as the place where you could spend $300 and have a beautiful web site. Wonder why drupal's add-ons are far inferior and why growth has taken much longer than Joomla?

I'm sure that Drupal will be at that point as well in the future. Why is speed the only maxime to judge whether something is good?

Why is "speed" important? This is really more for levity since I couldn't think of another way to express my sentiments verbally.
http://forum.malaysianmedicine.com/topi ... hichpage=8
http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/d/d0058000.html

Instead of pie in the sky idealism, I had to investigate the cost of bringing a Drupal site up to speed where it was cosmetically appealing and functional. I know the actual cost of several of the "showcase" Drupal sites. As bobbio2007 stated, my own developers came to the same conclusion. Before you start telling me what the future holds, spend some of your time figuring out what you REALLY need to accomplish to get there. And if you continue to absurdly insist that time for completion is not an issue, then even your own advocates are rolling their eyeballs in disbelief...

If Drupal is not the tool for you then don't use it.  If Joomla! isn't the tool for you then don't use it.  We are not a company trying to push a product.  We are a non-profit group of volunteers working on a project.  Is this where the misunderstanding lies?  Yes we want to be the best we can be, but we want to do it in the best way we can to protect our project's best interests and in a way that we believe best suits our values.

P.s: i hope joomla still will be a cms for the masses, right now i got scared over if i am at all allowed to use this cms without getting sued in some way ore another,, cause i pressed the wrong button and downloaded something that was free (extensions,etc) but isn't anyway or,, ehhh

Please don't support the confusion that has been spread by some in this thread. Nobody is going to be sued because there were uncompliant extensions on a website. This is ridiculous - who would do what nobody can? (see above)

You are spreading confusion and unnecessary clutter by not paying attention to what people are saying. And as most of the core developers themselves are saying -- we are not lawyers and are not providing you with any legal opinions. Hire legal counsel for such a task. I respect them for saying so. The only thing ridiculous is you trying to rally people to continue your quest to GPL the world like is in your own existence. My fellow site owners need solid answers and solutions. Not hype about a clouded future which nobody prepared for.

I am not sure you are paying attention to whats said either ... *sigh*

And in conclusion to this tome, we have really socked it to the development community. There is a heavy price to pay. None of you know exactly what it is but the wheels and doors are coming off this puppy. It's a LOT harder to accelerate once you've experienced a slowdown. And if you want to make this into a drupal, fine. If you consider "success" to be a handful of gorgeous sites and lots of simple personal sites and blogs, great. I lived through slash, phpnuke and more you've never heard of. Joomla was way more than any of those and a real world example of being able to create beautiful, functional web sites quickly and at a fraction of the cost. People here didn't just put up some shlocky site that worked - they invested in creating labors of love on a budget. I love you commercial developers who saved me the cost of paying 10-20 times what it would have just to get those extensions to work flawlessly. I'm sorry to see you go. I fear that this amazing dream will now be a thing of the past unless someone wakes up soon. Not having pure GPL licensing is not evil. There are other great models as we've witnessed here. The free software foundation may have great ideas and superlawyers but as it pertains to the facts concerning this project, I fear that the result of where we are headed is not what many of us will be happy with...

And your opinion is noted.  I don't agree with all of it, but it is valid and thank you for sharing.

Louis

[speeduneed]

Amy et al.

Alot of our questions surround the same issues that have been brought up but not really answered. So in an effort to make things easier I will restate some of the concerns in a way that can be answered clearly...

Is the GPL change effective immediately?

If it is not effective immediately when will it take effect?

In all seriousness what are the user communities supposed to do about previously purchased compnents that were licensed Commercial and are not going to be re-released GPL and are in use on client sites?

If we are in non-compliance one must uninstall the component in question?

If we paid good money for the component what recourse do we have for having spent our money or our client's money on said component? Will the Joomla.org organization be reimbursing?

Can someone please explain to me why templates are exempt cause it doesnt make any sense to me and I need to understand. I have read the explanations here and have read the press release but here is the crux... I have purchased templates from Barrie and Casey at JoomlaShack and have a membership at RT. Without putting words into Barrie's mouth there seems to be some concern on his part which raises some red flags for something I had planned. If I wanted to start a template based business geared towards churches how would I have to sell those. Do I sell them as a membership? As a service? As a subscription? As a product? am I protected or am I merely hoping that people will pay me?

What is the deadline for all of the changes be made to the extension directory and the Joomla sites? If we say end of July at least then we will know as of Aug 1 what the state of affairs is right? We will know what extensions are compliant and can start moving forward from there. As of right now we are in a state of limbo. So please... draw a line in the sand. Tell us when we will be out of this mess.

These are just off the top of my head. I am sure there are others.

Thanks! I really do want to see this resolved. But without clear answers and deadlines it becomes difficult as we are just guessign at what will happen. Lets move quickly through the change and then we can know where we are....

Again...JoomlaChurch
if you paid for a commercial non GPL extention and you used it with your GPL extention then you are not in violation.
Its the person who is selling his program under a more limiting licence that needs to come into compliance not you.

[skOre]

I noticed some references to TYPO3 having no commercial extensions. This is not true.

Another one falls into the trap... People actually mean to say "proprietary". There is no problem with commercial extensions.

skOre - I was about to roast your vociferous comments that border on the absurd until I looked at your web site. I see that you are twenty-something artist and a self-professed "tree hugger" and an "idealist." I'll try to have some sympathy but I'm hoping that you can LISTEN to what many experienced people here are saying. I wonder whether you'll see things differently if you get married and have a few kids, feel even more urgency to bring home the bacon... I'll explain

I'm glad that you found the remarks that I added there to offend people like you. In the end, its HOW you age that makes you wise, not that you age itself. And keep your "married and kids" to yourself. As RMS has once nicely remarked, like "What do you mean that is your sole source of income? Excuse me, I hit people to the head with a stick but its my sole source of income! I know I'm poisoning the river, but thats how I feed my kids!". To possibly offend you even more, I am 22.

Nobody could give a crap about whether the course was clear to some people at some time. For the hundredth time, the mistake, as was so incredibly well put by several people prior, was that the Joomla project thrived and was allowed to thrive on a license that was other than the GPL for a LONG TIME. The non-GPL cat was SHOVED out of the bag. Taking an "unmistakable stand" on this" isn't going to change the repercussions of trying to shove the cat back into the bag. You'll see in a moment.

As you see in the history of this thread, this discussion has been around for a little longer. And as I have repeatedly told you, the GPL rider did not really matter. I will say this for the last time now: You are not dealing with a new situation, this has been around all the time - its just that it has been made clear now

You're what... 25? Perhaps that is why you feel immortal. The rest of us aren't. I'm hoping to see Joomla 1.5 officially released with whatever legal standing it has while I'm still young. We only have a finite time to accomplish goals during our short lifetimes. Providing an answer like this, respectfully, makes me wonder whether you are really thinking about the issues or perhaps it is obvious that with you it's the free GPL way or the highway... and time is of no consequence to you... it will happen when it does...

And where do you take these remarks from? The difference between me and you is that I gave a lot of thoughts to the way I want to lead my life very early. This has the perks that I made decisions that will last for a long time in my view. You have followed a different path and now that you are confronted with mine, you see no other option than to doubt it?

So now we have the five wise men who have concluded matters of fact and law and guaranteeing the community complete absolution and a fiscal guarantee? Why do I think they are not going that far?

You have a disturbing tendency of exaggerating things where it fits the least. Nobody said that and you know it.

Without providing legal advice and having a GREAT deal of sympathy for fellow developers here, e.g. see JoomlaChurch, who don't know who or what to believe

That might be because the points have been made very clear not only by the core developers, but on this thread as well, but people like you keep on repeating that things are not clear. This issue has always been very clear indeed and just because you don't accept it doesn't make it less clear. You are one of the few people who brought these points up at all, this started the confusion.

I'd like to help them assauge their fears and further probe bobbio2007's fantastic post. It seems that the copyright holders here have themselves caught in a bit of a pickle. I don't know what the superlawyers said - I'm just a lawyer - but there are legal principles and rules that are contained in common sense. Do we really need to look at what the license says any more at this point? The fact that that that the commercial non-GPL extensions were listed, recommended and a integrated as a part of Joomla and this community for so long by the rights holders makes it incredibly difficult for them to now run to court and make any assertions of wrongdoing. Courts want to screen cases from plaintiffs/complainers who themselves are guilty of not coming in clean and creating their own problem. This is a mess. It is arguable that even the developers of commercial extensions cannot be prevented from continuing development on what they have sold here. After all, weren't they induced into doing what they did here to their detriment? They are now told after a long time that their extensions are not valid here or elsewhere. I don't know what the superlawyers would say, but we are talking about a fact-based problem, not a hypothetical discussion about what the GPL is or intended to be. I can only wonder what the real situation is with Joomla 1.5, but I'm not going there.

But WHO REALLY CARES? As I said, until you're ready to back your words by hiring developers to fill in the huge commercial extensions hole that existed for years, you're just rallying all the troops to continue to do work for free. bobbio2007 stated much so eloquently. Never gonna happen in a timely fashion...

I do not work for free, if you want any example to disprove your mere theory, here I am.

And I can provide you with 100 examples for every one you provide of crappy free code with horrible support. What's your point, especially as it pertains to whether people who have invested in Joomla will be able to replace their now "non-complying" commercial extensions with a reasonable alternative?

A few components? How about we name the laundry list. You REALLY don't want to do that. Until you're ready to fund the efforts, quit giving hypotheticals and bare promises of future salvation.

Of course you can, have I said anything against that? You try to mix your view of how software is supposed to be developed with the way it actually is. More and more software is written as free from ownership. You can try to discuss this away as inferior as long as you want, reality will prove you wrong, which you could understand if you would take a look around.

Why is "speed" important? This is really more for levity since I couldn't think of another way to express my sentiments verbally.
http://forum.malaysianmedicine.com/topi ... hichpage=8
http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/d/d0058000.html

Instead of pie in the sky idealism, I had to investigate the cost of bringing a Drupal site up to speed where it was cosmetically appealing and functional. I know the actual cost of several of the "showcase" Drupal sites. As bobbio2007 stated, my own developers came to the same conclusion. Before you start telling me what the future holds, spend some of your time figuring out what you REALLY need to accomplish to get there. And if you continue to absurdly insist that time for completion is not an issue, then even your own advocates are rolling their eyeballs in disbelief...

Oh boy, where to start. First off, as long as you insist that all the software in the world revolves around your problems right now, we are not getting anywhere. I was talking about the fact that Free Software is something that has grown slowly but steadily since quite a while. Just take a look at where the whole Linux-kernel related sector is at right now and even you will appreciate the development that has been made there. Just because it doesn't fit you right now

You are spreading confusion and unnecessary clutter by not paying attention to what people are saying. And as most of the core developers themselves are saying -- we are not lawyers and are not providing you with any legal opinions. Hire legal counsel for such a task. I respect them for saying so. The only thing ridiculous is you trying to rally people to continue your quest to GPL the world like is in your own existence. My fellow site owners need solid answers and solutions. Not hype about a clouded future which nobody prepared for.

The legal implications that surround the GPL are very clear and clearly understood. The only situations that can be problematic affect a small range of developers and you try to paint a picture where every end-user can be sued to death.

No End-User will ever be sued
Proprietary Developers are highly unlikely to be sued
(they will infinitely more likely to comply or go away)

And in conclusion to this tome, we have really socked it to the development community. There is a heavy price to pay. None of you know exactly what it is but the wheels and doors are coming off this puppy. It's a LOT harder to accelerate once you've experienced a slowdown. And if you want to make this into a drupal, fine. If you consider "success" to be a handful of gorgeous sites and lots of simple personal sites and blogs, great. I lived through slash, phpnuke and more you've never heard of. Joomla was way more than any of those and a real world example of being able to create beautiful, functional web sites quickly and at a fraction of the cost. People here didn't just put up some shlocky site that worked - they invested in creating labors of love on a budget. I love you commercial developers who saved me the cost of paying 10-20 times what it would have just to get those extensions to work flawlessly. I'm sorry to see you go. I fear that this amazing dream will now be a thing of the past unless someone wakes up soon. Not having pure GPL licensing is not evil. There are other great models as we've witnessed here. The free software foundation may have great ideas and superlawyers but as it pertains to the facts concerning this project, I fear that the result of where we are headed is not what many of us will be happy with...

Yeah, its all great as long as you spend less money and have to ask less questions, isn't it? Computers make the world so much more simple and less to care about.

Great to know the advocates of GPL are also advocates of misusing software (or misusing anything, for that matter). My point is made, feel free to remove this post.

Great to know that you dont get sarcasm even if its written in especially big letters.

Regarding the fact that "everyone knows" statement - it doesn't matter. Joomla itself permitted a practice to go on extensively and embraced it. The copyright holders had knowledge and ability to clearly admonish and take action to remove extensions that were non-compliant from the directory and not being recommended in the forum. Pointing to other efforts that have the same problem as Joomla doesn't solve anything. The problem is that nobody spoke up here LONG AGO when someone should have - and could have.

Sure it does; no; no; sure it does; that has the same priority as informing people that water is wet.

[ccondrup]

Hey, thought I'd chip in some interesting numbers I just searched my way to (using advanced search on the extensions dir):

The total number of extensions was advertised to 1652 on the top of the site, while when searching for all I got 2027, but when summing up from each license I got 1897 so I'll use that latter one for the percentage calculation.

gnu gpl - 1364 - 72%
commercial - 283 - 15%
free/other OS - 201 - 11%
subscr/donate - 44 - 2%
bsd license - 5 - 0%

I guess many of those commercial ones might be compliant with the GPL, so the number of "violating", properietary extensions might be lower than these 15% (and of course not all extensions are in this directory, but it's of course the most complete to base such data on).

Just thought it would be interesting data, I certainly don't wish to add another personal opinion to this thread 
Best of luck everyone, I hope the devs are back to developing first and foremost!

[speeduneed]

This only takes away "DISTRIBUTORS" intellectual property rights of non compliant extention developers. For your company this is actually GREAT!!!! because it means your company cannot be sued by that commercail developer for misusing the software.

Wow, that's really "GREAT!!!!" Now I cannot be sued by the developer even when I misuse the software!!! I hope GPL will be extended to all other legal areas! Then I cannot be sued when I misuse anything!! Perhaps one day I can even get away with rape!


Great to know the advocates of GPL are also advocates of misusing software (or misusing anything, for that matter). My point is made, feel free to remove this post.

The developer who released a derivative extention of a GPL application is actually the person who misused the software licence they accepted as a part of using this software.  So why would you be in favor of that violator suing his own customer when he was the one who violated the terms of the licence he accepted as a part of using GPL software? Get a clue!!!!

[slinky]

Again...JoomlaChurch
if you paid for a commercial non GPL extention and you used it with your GPL extention then you are not in violation.
Its the person who is selling his program under a more limiting licence that needs to come into compliance not you.

And again, rest easy that while you very likely won't get sued, be prepared for the fact that development of those extensions will no longer occur. Many essentials in your site are now "dead" for development purposes and especially as they relate to transition to 1.5.

Louis, yeah, I think you're right. I apologize for not making my feelings perfectly clear but they weren't malicious at all. My point wasn't the age dig for the sake of condescension. You'll see. It's the fact that to him there was no sense of urgency to get anything done. I'm also not married. But I completely appreciate how my independence, especially when I was younger and subsidized, didn't allow me to see how much pressure people have to earn money -- especially with dependents. When I was in college I could AFFORD to be an idealist!!! I empathize with developers who are telling me that while perhaps the GPL may, perhaps, work out for humanity in the long run, for many here they must deal with the immediate needs of putting bread on the table for several dependents. I apologize if it came out a little snide.

My point about the superlawyers, yeah, perhaps again a little bit of fun. I'm very concerned not about the legalities but about practical repercussions here and we are seeing them. I hope to help avoid this. I know that my sites - and I'm not alone - will feature a significant number of integral extensions that will now be discontinued.

How about this for productive -- we start by listing all the extensions in our library that are now non-compliant and which developers may or may not decide to continue to support? Then we can all see and quantify just what the potential damage could be and exactly what potential holes we now need to fill.

One caveat all - not fearmongering, just the sad truth. Remember -- newcomers will now be unable to use these extensions at all. They will look at those of us who purchased with significant envy. Those require the permission of developers who will now no longer be offering them for sale...

[de]

This only takes away "DISTRIBUTORS" intellectual property rights of non compliant extention developers. For your company this is actually GREAT!!!! because it means your company cannot be sued by that commercail developer for misusing the software.

Wow, that's really "GREAT!!!!" Now I cannot be sued by the developer even when I misuse the software!!! I hope GPL will be extended to all other legal areas! Then I cannot be sued when I misuse anything!! Perhaps one day I can even get away with rape!


Great to know the advocates of GPL are also advocates of misusing software (or misusing anything, for that matter). My point is made, feel free to remove this post.

The developer who released a derivative extention of a GPL application is actually the person who misused the software licence they accepted as a part of using this software.  So why would you be in favor of that violator suing his own customer when he was the one who violated the terms of the licence he accepted as a part of using GPL software? Get a clue!!!!

This "violation" is based on an intepretation of the GPL and not a [yet] proven fact. And of course does it not give you the right to do what you like with the software (as stated earlier). As also stated previously you do not have any means to sue the developer (that can only the copyright holder). And until then the non-GPL license is to follow.

[Shamele]

I noticed some references to TYPO3 having no commercial extensions. This is not true.

Another one falls into the trap... People actually mean to say "proprietary". There is no problem with commercial extensions.


In any case, the point is that if you develop an extension, whether proprietary or not, it should be considered a program built on the framework of Joomla. Just like people build proprietary programs on the framework of PHP or create a drawing using GIMP. I'm just not seeing how these extensions are derivative works.

[Vimes]

Hey, thought I'd chip in some interesting numbers I just searched my way to (using advanced search on the extensions dir):

gnu gpl - 1364 - 72%
commercial - 283 - 15%
free/other OS - 201 - 11%
subscr/donate - 44 - 2%
bsd license - 5 - 0%

I guess many of those commercial ones might be compliant with the GPL, so the number of "violating", properietary extensions might be lower than these 15% (and of course not all extensions are in this directory, but it's of course the most complete to base such data on)

Unfortunately you will find that many of those gpl extensions may have been supplied by commercial devs who may no longer wish to support them, so whilst at the moment things look sweet, there's a danger that they will quickly fall by the wayside.

Granted, many of the gpl compliant extensions can be forked but before you rest easily in that knowledge, first offer to revive some of the dead projects that used to reside on the old forge. Getting people to adopt dead projects is no trivial task.

[dhuelsmann]

Last reminder!

Mod Note: Just a reminder! The moderators are allowing an unusual amount of freedom in this particular thread. However, don't assume that all of the forum rules have been suspended here as a result. We will enforce the rules - particularly:

Keep all commentary civil, and be courteous at all times. Constructive criticism is welcome, but insults directed towards other users or the site admins will not be tolerated. Coarse/insulting language will not be tolerated.

[Vimes]

Eh? What did I do wrong?

[skOre]

Unfortunately you will find that many of those gpl extensions may have been supplied by commercial devs who may no longer wish to support them, so whilst at the moment things look sweet, there's a danger that they will quickly fall by the wayside.

And that clearly shows the advantage of GPL licensing in this regard. Proprietary developers are not seen leaving their proprietary code to the public awaiting a willing programmer to take over and rejuvenate it. So I don't think that this "grey number" of possibly soon to abandoned GPL code is really that scary - I am sure there are a lot of devs who would be willing to take that code over.

[Vimes]

I am sure there are a lot of devs who would be willing to take that code over.

Sigh.

Granted, many of the gpl compliant extensions can be forked but before you rest easily in that knowledge, first offer to revive some of the dead projects that used to reside on the old forge. Getting people to adopt dead projects is no trivial task.

[skOre]

But at least it is possible. And with lots of time on our hands and more and more developers coming in (doubt whichever you may of these, one is enough mostly ), its not a question IF, but rather WHEN. And that should be enough.

[speeduneed]

Wow, that's really "GREAT!!!!" Now I cannot be sued by the developer even when I misuse the software!!! I hope GPL will be extended to all other legal areas! Then I cannot be sued when I misuse anything!! Perhaps one day I can even get away with rape!


Great to know the advocates of GPL are also advocates of misusing software (or misusing anything, for that matter). My point is made, feel free to remove this post.

The developer who released a derivative extention of a GPL application is actually the person who misused the software licence they accepted as a part of using this software.  So why would you be in favor of that violator suing his own customer when he was the one who violated the terms of the licence he accepted as a part of using GPL software? Get a clue!!!!

This "violation" is based on an intepretation of the GPL and not a [yet] proven fact. And of course does it not give you the right to do what you like with the software (as stated earlier). As also stated previously you do not have any means to sue the developer (that can only the copyright holder). And until then the non-GPL license is to follow.

If you read my previous post I suggested that no one distribute a non compliant GPL extention. You will also notice that I reccommend not to sue anyone. In my opinion those commercial non compliant GPL extentions need to do a couple of things.

1. find someone who really understands this licencing issue who also understands code
2. review the code in the extention to see if ANY of that code comes from Joomla or is derived from Joomla
3. determine where you feel your code stands as far as compliance
4. consider using an open source model or do nothing and get scolded for violating the GPL, risk removal from joomla site
5. if you seriously feel that your code does not violate then GPL then I would have someone at joomla sign an nda and review the code for you

If you are a commercial non GPL compliant extention developer you could consider ignoring this entire discussion as Joomla has stated they do not intend to sue any of the non compliant developers. They only tend to scold them and ask them to stop distrubuting them.

Hey besides that there could be some nice new Commercially encoded non GPL compliant extention directory sites in the future.

Being in a state of non compliance and violation is a MAJOR option if your making some major bling bling on your extention.

I know a few major devs in this thread are going to just to do biz as usual as getting pulled from the Joomla site is not enough for them to cut and run. Only the ones who are not making enough money will do that.

People stay where the people are and Joomla will keep the mass community because the mass community loves FREE software.

Question:
If these  developers can continue to sell commercial non compliant GPL extentions that are encoded then how does this hurt those developers?

1. If they need to assert intellectual property rights in a court of law the Joomla teams statement will go far to void there ability to protect such rights.
2. If anyone were to purchase then reverse engeener those extentions and distribute them it would make it hard to defend their copyright over those people
3. If they built up a large set of these extentions into a small business and they tried to sell that business to another mega company then they would need to disclose this violation which could lower the resale value of that business
4. If they do come into compliance then they might not sell as many copies of such software so they might need to increase the price of the software or find more of a service based architecture

What other kinds of GPL models could a developer use?
1. sell support services
2. do hosted services
3. create GPL extentions to monthly reoccuring services

This will force us all to think big!!! Think outside the box.
Think next generation GPL extentions that need to integrate into some kind of external platform.
I have always though that modules that integrate into Joomla which hook to cool web 2.0 platform and external services would be the way
Think subscription services!!!!

Joomla it self should consider doing a subscription service model for say $200 per year for apps that want to be placed into a commercial pool of compliant GPL applications. Sort of like cell phone companies.

I would be happy  to pay 1000 bucks a year to get access to ALL the compliant extentions and have the ability to offer them to my clients.

Now that I am done fighting against them I think we all need to fight for them. Joomla Team has woken up and should not stand for any NON  compliant extentions but they should also shift gears and create a commercial community subscription platform with full disclosure and equal pay for equal downloads.

Now one here disagrees that us buyers of these commerical extentions want to pay our fair share. But lets make them viable to build and profitable for people to make.

I would ask the Joomla Team.....
How can you help me build a compliant commercial GPL extention and help those developers make a living?

Add a feature to the extentions section for access to subscription GPL extentions would be a HUGE start.

[marlar]

Regarding templates, Andy posted a great reply on RT that might better your understanding http://www.rockettheme.com/option,com_s ... /#msg71677

But the problem with his statement is that he has commercial interests in selling templates. It's a bit like when the police is  to investigate their own abuse. Don't get me wrong, I am not comparing RT with anything criminal, it just a way to express that Andy is disqualified (as in not neutral) in this discussion.

[vscribe]

seems "convienent" doesn't it.

[louis.landry]

Regarding templates, Andy posted a great reply on RT that might better your understanding http://www.rockettheme.com/option,com_s ... /#msg71677

But the problem with his statement is that he has commercial interests in selling templates. It's a bit like when the police is  to investigate their own abuse. Don't get me wrong, I am not comparing RT with anything criminal, it just a way to express that Andy is disqualified (as in not neutral) in this discussion.

Andy's statement is backed by the entire core team, the OSM board and based on advice from the Software Freedom Law Center.  I don't make templates so there is no conflict of interest.  I would be happy to restate it if you wish?

Louis

[slinky]

Hey, thought I'd chip in some interesting numbers I just searched my way to (using advanced search on the extensions dir):
Commercial - 283 - 15%
I guess many of those commercial ones might be compliant with the GPL, so the number of "violating", properietary extensions might be lower than these 15% (and of course not all extensions are in this directory, but it's of course the most complete to base such data on)

Wow - 283 commercial extensions in violation is a nice, sizeable number and 15% of the total. As someone who has a very good amount of experience in the free for all arena, I can tell you that the ratio of crap to quality is usually at least 10 to 1. This is an alarming number - not to say that there still aren't a good number of free, GPL based extensions, but there are a LOT of unfinished ones in the directory. It would help by starting to name all 283 and then you can decide whether a good number of them are the ones you'd really be sad to see go.

Again, remember the two tier system! We are now creating the "haves" and the "have nots." I have just discovered that a component I really wanted to buy is now no longer available for sale! Newcomers to the community should be thrilled. So let the naming process begin!